Is this a plausible setting?

[Mirannan]

I would like some opinions about whether this is a believable extrapolation of a medium-term (now plus 50?) future British/Western society:

The two basic changes are continued increase in computing power (together with better software; AI that it isn't too difficult to think is sapient is routine, and sapient AI is just around the corner - in fact that's the main plot thread) and development in small-scale manufacturing and power generation; maybe advances in 3D printing or nanomanufacture and small (150 homes supplied or so) fusion reactors.

This implies cheap goods and also cheap energy. But not included in the above are a couple of further developments of a more social sort. The public in general have got sufficiently fed up with people who many see as parasitic (bankers, corporate senior executives, lawyers and politicians among them) that many of them, some time in the not too remote past, have been subjected to a hemp recall - a phrase which is now in the language and the process which it describes is still occasionally applied to someone who gets too big for his britches.

Accordingly, large-scale organisations are rare and national politics almost doesn't exist; most matters are handled by neighbourhood-based committees, the membership of which is thought of by most people as a chore. (Dammit, it's my month to sit on the power plant maintenance committee...)

People who work for large organisations (some of which are still necessary) are therefore thought of as being somewhat suspect and more than a little socially unacceptable because they are likely to start trying to accumulate power for themselves. And matters that in our time are handled by people (law, banking, law enforcement) are handled by either impartial computers (see the semi-strong AI proposition above) or people subject to extremely stringent oversight.

I hope I've explained my vision, and of course there are holes in it. But is it plausible?

 

[jastius]

yes.. if there were some kind of breakdown in centalized government in the inbetween fifty years. personally i would put it at a two hundred year mark, because i think thats how long (i think) it would take for the death throes of walmart, mcdonalds and coke to subside. .. but its doable.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Maybe. What is needed is some technology that removes the power from the big corporates and governments(?) and puts it in the hands of more ordinary people. Home 3D and nanoconstruction would be examples of such tech. But my question would be - if such technology exists, why does it stop at the level of the community? Why does it not empower every single individual human being to be his own king? Why have a community powerstation if every man can have his own one in his back yard?

And the other question naturally, is how is social order maintained? Is there a need for governments and police? Because they surely can't be local things.

Also in your world build I think you need to consider how rough the process was for society to reach this state. Think the fall of massive companies, mass unemployment, collapsing economies, civil unrest.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Brian G Turner]

You write whatever you feel is realistic to your story. Although you can aim to predict the future, ultimately your world will be judged on how its holds together in terms of consistency and continuity to support the story, IMO.

 

[Mirannan]

Hi,

Maybe. What is needed is some technology that removes the power from the big corporates and governments(?) and puts it in the hands of more ordinary people. Home 3D and nanoconstruction would be examples of such tech. But my question would be - if such technology exists, why does it stop at the level of the community? Why does it not empower every single individual human being to be his own king? Why have a community powerstation if every man can have his own one in his back yard?

And the other question naturally, is how is social order maintained? Is there a need for governments and police? Because they surely can't be local things.

Also in your world build I think you need to consider how rough the process was for society to reach this state. Think the fall of massive companies, mass unemployment, collapsing economies, civil unrest.

Cheers, Greg.

Well, some people might have their own power stations - but the type I'm thinking of is likely to have a floor of around 5MW and a cost of around $50k in today's money, most of that cost being in intrinsically uncommon elements. 5MW is just about what 100-150 houses might use, with generous supply.

I forgot to mention another thing I thought of as a component of the setting. Whereas most small enterprises these days get their startup money by going cap-in-hand to a bank, I envisage the most common way of getting such cash being the process of crunding - an obvious contraction of "crowdfunding". Meaning that small businesses would be more likely to survive the first few years, because whether the cash is forthcoming or not would be a good indicator of whether it's going to work.

And yes, the medium-term past of such a society would be rather nasty. Involving a fair number of people having an appointment with a length of rope and a lamp post, and a fair number of buildings burned down - and a fair number of police and the like deciding that no, some people don't deserve the protection of the law. And in setting a fair number of disused and crumbling power stations...

 

[Ray McCarthy]

AI that it isn't too difficult to think

In the real world AI, doesn't mean AI and either kind only needs computing power for speed.

3D printing the issue is creating the design. So if there was cheap 3D printing with decent materials most production would still be businesses. Any volume more than 500 off will use 3D printed or machined Molds. Computer controlled Machining is as likely as 3D printing depending on material type, costs and shape. Physics would suggest many materials would never ever be 3D printed but thermoset moulded, cast or machined. Ceramic, Diamond, Sapphire and Glass windows / parts are not going to be 3D printed. You can do certain kinds of metal 3D printing, but for strength any metal parts would be machined, cast etc. A model can be printed in a material that evaporates or melts by 3D printer, then packed in silver sand etc and metal cast (Lost wax method). Casting isn't a feasible home activity, but can be small workshops.

Today on any Industrial Estate or area there are loads of small, often owner / operator companies / Machine Shops / Workshops producing low volume specialist parts. Some may have started in 19th century. Today they use Computer Mills / CNC /Routers /Laser cutter /Mills, 3D printers etc. They depend on their expensive equipment AND their design and production skills.

If you have Fusion Power for 150 Homes, it's more likely for groups of 1000 to 15000 homes due to space, management etc. CF Telephone Exchanges. It might only be used for under 1000 homes in very rural situations. Urban, Suburban and Villages would be larger groups due to density.

5MW is just about what 100-150 houses might use, with generous supply

Maybe in profligate energy wasting places. Peak consumption would average at about 800kW and off peak less than 100kW. Of course if energy was almost free peak use might be 5MW for 100 to 150 houses if used for heating.

 

[Mirannan]

Ray - I was assuming the use of fusion-derived electricity for heating. I recently discovered the power requirement for a medium-sized house for heating purposes because I needed a new central heating boiler; it's rated at 18kW. Which means that when the heating is going full-blast and I'm cooking dinner, running a washing machine and a dryer at the same time (unlikely, but not impossible) the requirement might be around 30kW. Multiply that by 150 and the 5MW is reached - roughly!

OK, it might have to be full-on nanomanufacturing as routine. And BTW, the fusion unit I mentioned is envisaged as being roughly the size of a large domestic fridge - so it would live in its own building the size of a garden shed or large cable TV cabinet.

 

[Toby Frost]

This all seems quite feasible and, in a strange way, quite optimistic, given that the world isn’t being run by evil corporations or evil zealots (although I am a lawyer so not entirely desirable). While it sounds plausible, I’d wonder what these regions would do in the event of a larger country threatening them. A fascist Russia or even some weird European throwback would inevitably see such an system as weak, decadent etc and hence ripe for the taking: similarly, a small terrorist group could probably cause serious damage to one particular area (albeit not much more than that, given the spreading-out of power).

I too wonder how violent the uprising would be. I have a suspicion that a system that starts brutal stays brutal (and, as per Starship Troopers, ends up proud of its brutality).

Culturally, this could be very interesting. The regions might have a sort of arts-and-crafts mentality to most things. Perhaps they revere William Morris. Is the population about the same?

One thing I’ve mentioned but not gone into much detail about (because it’s not very funny) is that the Space Captain Smith world is set after the overthrow of some sort of terrible global dictatorship, and the splitting-up of the world after it. Of course, this is always explained through the filter of the characters’ own prejudices, but it’s fairly clear that it was an exaggerated version of the worst bits of now.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

fusion unit I mentioned is envisaged as being roughly the size of a large domestic fridge

I have ones that power "people carriers". I think that's fine as long as you don't do much explanation. But usually no-one writing contemporary fiction explains how a car engine works. The Fridge size ones can provide power for atmospheric and space flight for my Flitters, which can be 2x 747 size and about x6 747 carrying capacity. A character refers to them as bottled star stuff. Current Fusion Reactors are huge because the Plasma is very much lower density and higher temperature than a Star, and also use Heavy hydrogen rather than the ordinary Hydrogen that Primary Sequence Stars run off.

If no use of synthetic Methane and synthetic LPG (a good idea to use up waste Carbon and CO2 if you have cheap fusion power) then your power reasonable.

Synthetic LPG is more attractive than Electricity or Hydrogen for cars etc as it's cheaper to transport than either and far easier and cheaper than either to store in the car. Also, existing petrol engines have had efficient LPG conversion kits (that even allow switching with a dashboard switch) for over 40 years.

Synthetic Methane Gas & LPG can be supplemented by Bio gas (Methane) from Poo. A technology 50 years old!

 

[Ray McCarthy]

medium-sized house for heating purposes because I needed a new central heating boiler; it's rated at 18kW.

Though 10KW is plenty. If the house is properly insulated and triple glazed (with Thermal reflective coating) then 1kW in addition to other heat sources is enough. If in a hot place, such insulation means much less air conditioning power is required.

 

[Mirannan]

Ray - Or methanol synthesis, for use in fuel cells perhaps, could be an option for vehicle use. Cheap, clean energy gives you a lot of options.

Actually, battery technology might be good enough for the job - combined with another technology just about on the horizon, this one being driverless cars. And maybe with robotic battery-changing units as well; the recharging stations keep a stock of full batteries, thus eliminating the tedious wait for the battery to recharge. One might end up with a situation in which actually owning a car is seen as rather eccentric; the normal thing to do is whistle up a car, which arrives at your house in about 15 minutes and takes you where you need to go. (And recharges itself en route, if necessary.)

This all sounds a bit utopian, doesn't it? Well, the AI Rights movement might be brewing up a little, much as the civil rights movement of the 1960s did. And, of course, there are going to be quite a few people who were living rather well before the upheaval, had to start working for a living - and don't much like it.

Toby - A society with efficient near-sapient AI and distributed manufacturing could be rather resistant to attack. No large items that are actually important to blow up, and of course the nanofabs could switch to manufacturing Terminators...

 

[Venusian Broon]

Are you talking about a 'techno-anarchy' Mirannan? Society atomised down into innumerable small villages of people, self sufficient and doing 'the Good Life'? What about food production? Is it handled locally as well? What about culture - is there no great culture anymore? What about scientific research and development? Who does this?

Sorry, Mirannan, apparently my head is just full of questions today

 

[Mirannan]

Are you talking about a 'techno-anarchy' Mirannan? Society atomised down into innumerable small villages of people, self sufficient and doing 'the Good Life'? What about food production? Is it handled locally as well? What about culture - is there no great culture anymore? What about scientific research and development? Who does this?

Sorry, Mirannan, apparently my head is just full of questions today

Yup, that's more or less it. As for great culture - well, making music is a cottage industry these days with computing the way it is, and small music gigs have been going since forever.

I agree with you about scientific research and engineering development. Some of it can't be done on a small scale, which makes for interesting tensions.

I confess that I have little idea, at present, what I'm going to do with all this.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

battery technology

Battery life is garbage and always will be compared to Gas fuel. You can easily make a Car that lasts 20+ years that's LPG fueled. Batteries will be five years at best.
Affordable Lithium batteries need massive centralised industry too.

non-hydrogen fuel cells I think get poisoned also Methane poor for storage in a vehicle compared to LPG.
You can invent miniaturised recyclable CO2 scrubbers if you like, which are sent to the synthetic LPG plants.

 

[chrispenycate]

Unless there are specific reasons for it, I don't see the tendency for mankind to clot as being reversible. Nor can I see the desire of certain individuals to boss it over others as likely to go away on its own. If population centres over 10,000 encourage the diffusion of some uncurable disease, or preemptive strike by some AI preprogrammed to keep world population low and homogenised (to reduce the seriousness of wars) then maybe, but otherwise the limit of size of cities has been food supply, sewage removal and pestilence. A large percentage of humanity likes company, and actually rather approves of authority and routine, however much they might grumble.

And it's not just manufacturing that profits from higher concentrations of people - everything creative cross-fertilises. So music works better in an environment where there are lots of musicians (and audiences), theatre, visual arts… To a certain extent electronic data exchange might reduce the need for personal exchange, but that puts massive power into the hands of telecommunications corporations, who have not shown all that much wisdom in using it in the past. Education? You don't need to look very far to see how an individual can warp an entire generation, and it's not somewhere I see AIs being all that useful. Similarly, if we need a police force or equivalent for maintaining such laws as are considered indispensable - possibly theft might be tolerable, but violence and rape surely not - that has to be extraterritorial, and give a structure that a clever megalomaniac can easily convert into an empire.

The idyllic picture of small town America, low density individual communities spread over a wide area depends on poor communications, limited food supply and low specialisation - add a touch of wealth and concentration of commodities, railways and the telegraph and separation into industrial or artistic, cities and agricultural regions begins. And it's very difficult to stop people following the trend.

 

[Mirannan]

Battery life is garbage and always will be compared to Gas fuel. You can easily make a Car that lasts 20+ years that's LPG fueled. Batteries will be five years at best.
Affordable Lithium batteries need massive centralised industry too.

non-hydrogen fuel cells I think get poisoned also Methane poor for storage in a vehicle compared to LPG.
You can invent miniaturised recyclable CO2 scrubbers if you like, which are sent to the synthetic LPG plants.

I didn't mention methane. MethanOL fuel cells are (IIRC) fairly easy to make; they are even being seriously considered on a really small scale as energy storage for mobile phones and the like. They would have the advantage that recharging your phone would be about as difficult and time-consuming as recharging a cigarette lighter - maybe less so.

BTW, there is actually little point in scrubbing and/or storing CO2 from any process that produces it - providing that the process that made the fuel you're burning pulled the carbon out of the air in the first place. Making fuel that way does, of course, require energy and quite a lot of it; but we're assuming a source of cheap, carbon-neutral energy - right?

This is one of the attractions of biomass as an energy source. The stuff you're burning was in the atmosphere anything from a few months ago to maybe a few years (depending on what sort of biomass it is) and the energy to make it is free as in sunlight.

Oh, and chrispenycate - There is indeed such an impulse in many humans to lord it over, and give orders to, others. There is also a counterbalancing impulse in many humans to tell such people where to stick their orders - sometimes violently. It's one of the themes of history; rebellions of one sort or another are hardly rare.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Just to expand. If fusion power becomes available in small units able to power 150 homes I see no reason why it shouldn't be available sooner or later to power a single home. I'm basing this on the model of simple electrical generation. There are any number of individual homes offgrid - runing on wind pups, solar cells and wheels, and there have been farms running on two of these systems for a hundred years or more. It's the nature of technology that complex things in time become simpler and easier to build. Cheaper too. Forty years ago a computer needed a building to house it. Now they're in hand held cell phones and everyone has one (except me!).

You also need to consider the other massive change in society that has been happening for decades and will continue. Telecommunications. Consider what will happen in the future due to it. Far more people working from home - telecommuting. That means smaller cities. Add to that your domestic scale manufacturing systems, and cities would become archaic. Why would anyone want to live in a crowded city if they can live in a comfortable home with fresh air etc, and not have to leave the house to go to work.

The other thing telecommunications does is change social networks. It's 2014 now. Who's your friend? Who's your neighbour? Is it the guy physically next door? Or the guy on the internet you speak to every day? Who are your workmates? The guys on the next desk or the guys on the other end of the phone? And how is this going to change in another twenty odd years?

And then there's your AI's. I assume they can drive cars and deliver goods - another industry gone to the robots! And Amazon's already talking about running computerised warehouses and delivering by drone.

I see the society you're describing as possible, but ending up as a society of individuals, not communities. A society where people don't even know their geographical neighbours, but chat with friends across the world. Where unemployment or underemployment is the norm, but tech is so cheap that it doesn't matter. People can afford to live like that. After all why should you pay a mill or more to live in a shoebox city apartment if you can buy a bare patch of land in the middle of nowhere for a tiny fraction of the cost, then simply have your nanites build a home for you, and be comfortable.

The real question for me would be is this future a eutopia or a dystopia?

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Venusian Broon]

After thinking about over this last night a couple of thoughts stuck out.

Firstly, what about the raw materials and commodities that these micro factories and 3-D printers are going to require to operate and produce the goods that each village needs? I am presuming that we are not talking about 100% recyclability 50 years from now so you will require fresh stuff coming in. Now in the original anarchist ideal I believe such demands were done by inter-trading between communes - so that materials would (slowly I presume) percolate to the right spot. But this was for a less industrial age. In this case we are talking about making fusion reactors, and then what else - tablets, smartphones etc... All presumably rely on some pretty rare materials that no one commune is going to be able to mine or process. So this I assume would be handled by some massive large mining/industrial organisation and this leads me to the second point.

It seems to provide a big global framework to make all this tech work (is there a global telecommunication network still? Are there still transport links that connect everything with everything. Both big business as well) is that it requires a whole range of massive companies and governmental departments. What's stopping these organisations doing exactly what they want to do and riding roughshod over the scattered communes? How do they respond? In the original ideas you put down it seemed to be a disdain for anything big from 'everyone'. This is hardly a disincentive for these organisations, even today when we can at least pool together, protest, have independent bodies examine proposals and make regulations to protect and serve* they are pretty much doing what they can get away with. In this world a lot of this seems completely absent. Making it an even better place for global organisations to be even more powerful.

So in this respect I see the whole scenario as heading to Mount Implausible. At least needs either some serious work on the mechanics of large organisations and how they would work in this world. At the moment, taking Gregs question, I'm leaning towards it being a dystopia of the vast majority of humanity corralled in little pens controlled by big business.

I also baulk at the idea that most of the important issues are given to 'AI' as a get out clause. Fair enough if you have it in your story to explain away loose ends, I can accept that in a fiction, but from a real perspective. 1) I (IMHO) think you will be sorely disappointed by AI progress** in fifty years time and 2) The manufacture and use of AI will have an agenda or some sort whether you like it or not - I am sure some may think it is impartial, some may think it is not.


* Ok, serve who? Yep there's definitely some skulduggery between vested interests and the public, but I'd argue at least the basic framework for the good of the public is there.

** Well progress in imitating what intelligence should act like, not actually making anything intelligent. Again purely my opinion

 

[Ray McCarthy]

drive cars and deliver goods

No real AI needed for that.
Actually easy 20 years ago if you ban people from roads

 

[Aquilonian]

A few brief points to consider.

You're writing about a post-revolutionary society- you imply that many people were lynched in that revolution. Bear in mind those people must therefore have been informed upon/accused by someone, and also some of their families will have survived. So after any violent upheaval there's immense scope for festering resentment and revenge, also for self-reinvention especially if police records etc have been destroyed.

You say that some bigger institutions still exist but people who work for them are regarded with suspicion. Why then would anyone do this work? Do they have their own ethic? I'm thinking of Joseph Wambaugh's earlier books eg The New Centurions.

As a general rule, any new institution that gains power and prestige (be it a religion, a party, a company, an army, or whatever) will then attract people who desire power and prestige, who'll often be totally different to the type of people who founded that institution- who may now be cast out as heretics if they still exist.

But you're envisaging a "demarchy", yes? In which people would seek to AVOID power and would therefore have to be coerced into it like jury service, probably by drawing lots. Which is an interesting idea but you need to consider the potential drawbacks.

In present system political office is desirable, therefore clever people find ways to obtain it. So we're ruled by clever but immoral people.
In demarchy, political office is undesirable, therefore clever but irresponsible people find ways to avoid it. So we're ruled by stupid and moral people, while the clever and immoral have more time to seek their own advantage by other means while the nice guys are sitting on the power station committee.

I think to make your world beleivable it's more important to show how beleivable and interesting people behave in it, rather than go into much detail as to how it got to be like that. After all, if you;re writing from an in-world POV they might not know. Most modern British people don't have a clue about how we got to where we are now, and insofar as they think they know they're often wrong. Even events that are well within living memory of people who aren't even old, is often falsified by the mainstream media.